What are the facts? Please keep an open mind and read the article first before casting your vote.

While there is certainly proof that mutations do occur in nature; There is absolutely no real evidence to support the theory of evolution at this time (for over the past 150 years of "Dino-digging"). Including the sedimentary column.

18

26%

There probably is evidence to support this theory, yet scientist are at a loss to explain it appropriately.

18

26%

Scientist are great at making shit up when they have no evidence to prove something that is false to begin with.

10

14%

I believe in Santa. He's a real person that lives all the way deep at the north pole and brings me presents every year. The presents prove that he's real. I also leave him milk and cookies to snack on and while I don't ever see him, I just know with all my heart, that he is the one who eats all the cookies and milk. Or, I wish I had a dogasaur like Dino.

Viceroy63 wrote: It is after all the fossil record that is used to prove evolution yet where are the intermediate species between Ape and Man? Or any other species. You just can't show the bones of an ape and the bones of a modern man and say, "See, evolution."

You have already been given links to several thousand transition species.. and when you repeated claims they do not exist, you were asked what you think a transition species means or would be like, but you refuse to even answer.

Viceroy63 wrote:Every time that scientist have showed this in the fossil records, it has been a Hoax or at the very least a very bad misrepresentation of the facts. But the fact that most of the evidence has been a Hoax must leads one to ask, Why? Why do scientist ever need to lie or mislead the public instead of just admitting that there is no evidence to support this claim?

Hmm... well, the words "every time" is pretty much a trap. You wish to claim that every single scientific claim every made about evolution is "just wrong".Were is your evidence of this?

Simply pretending that information you dislike is not available is not the scientific process. Science requires that you actually address evidence. You have not.

oss spy wrote:I think that the only time an argument from ignorance isn't a fallacy is in the case of being skeptical towards an unproven claim. However, I think that these creationists need to realize that there's a staggering amount of material that needs refutation; even if we are to assume that no transitional fossils exist, there is still the matter of evolution being observed in laboratories (i.e. bacteria becoming more resistant to a specific drug, bacteria being able to live off other sources of nutrients, etc.)

Evolution has never been observed in a Laboratory. Evolutionist make these claims of so much overwhelming evidence but actually are confusing one thing with another. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED AT ALL AT ANY TIME! It is after all the fossil record that is used to prove evolution yet where are the intermediate species between Ape and Man? Or any other species. You just can't show the bones of an ape and the bones of a modern man and say, "See, evolution."

Every time that scientist have showed this in the fossil records, it has been a Hoax or at the very least a very bad misrepresentation of the facts. But the fact that most of the evidence has been a Hoax must leads one to ask, Why? Why do scientist ever need to lie or mislead the public instead of just admitting that there is no evidence to support this claim?

In fact I dare you to post that evidence. I will refute it here one at a time.

All that scientist and biologist have been able to show is MUTATIONS. And most of the times mutations have been harmful to the life organism. When we speak of a virus mutating into another type of virus or adaptations to the original virus or germ, guess what, It is still just a virus or a germ. It did not evolve into a more complex and different animal/life/organism. So what evolution did we actually see in a laboratory? None! Black and white humans are mutations of the same species. So what?

Part of the problem is that evolutionary science can't even determine the definition of it's own words and confuse mutation with Darwinian evolution. Hell, evolutionary science has yet to determine what the word "Species" means? Even among themselves they can't get the meaning right on the words that they use and they call that evidence?

I think that it's all part of the Hoax to confuse people into believing in evolution. I think that you must have more faith to believe in a foundation-less theory of evolution than to believe in a Creator God. At least God has a foundation. The theory of evolution is a foundation-less religion! And it requires much faith and a closed mind to believe in it.

Once more I provide links and sources to the fact that the theory of evolution is an unfounded and unproven hypothesis. It is not fact. This is not just me saying this but people who actually studied this and have degrees and doctorates from prestigious schools and universities. This one goes out to all you open minded folks who can see the obviousness of the truth. May these articles continue to found and to ground your faith in the truth and not in lies and scientific Hoaxes.

This drawing should be very familiar. It is found in many science and evolution textbooks, and is exhibited at museum displays about human evolution. But...... is it really factual?

What are the facts that scientists really know about human evolution? A useful resource to find an answer to this question is Ian Tattersall's book, "The Fossil Trail: How we know what we think we know about human evolution". The book describes the facts and the fiction surrounding human origins while providing an overview of discoveries since Darwin's time.

These are the general facts that can be gleaned from the book:-

(1) Human-like fossils have been found in rocks, caves, dry lakes, glaciers, and other sites

(2) Some fossils have been found inside caves, while others have been found near building remains

(3) These fossils have been found in different spots around the world

(4) These fossils have been found in a variety of rock types and at varying depths

(5) Most fossils have been found as scattered bits and pieces

(6) Only a tiny number of complete skeletons have been found

(7) There is a great deal of variety in these human-like fossils

(8) Tools that could have been made by humans have been found with many of these fossils

(9) The tools have been constructed of various materials - stone, bone, wood, antler and metal

(10) The age of fossils and materials older than recorded history (about 2,500 years) are not known

(11) Fossils and materials of unknown age have dates estimated using indirect methods

These are the general facts of human evolution. There are many instances of specific facts describing isolated instances, but these do not lend weight to the overall picture.

Everything else that is said to be 'known' about human evolution is based on scientist's interpretation of this archaeological and fossil evidence. It is obvious then, that, most of what is said to be fact is informed speculation.

Much of this speculative interpretation is coloured by the evolutionary biases of the experts. The back cover of Tattersall's book describes the book as revealing "the insidious ways that received wisdom can shape how we interpret fossil findings, and how what we expect to find colours our understanding of what we do find."

Despite knowing this, TV documentaries, journal articles, news media and school textbooks fill out the few facts with scientist's interpretations, and the whole lot is presented as indisputable fact. Small wonder that students think that scientists have proved that humans evolved and that they know everything about how that evolution happened. John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas make this point:-

"Many ordinary people, reading the works of a single popularizer, believe that the riddle of human origins has been solved. In no case is this true, and all the ideas in print today - including our own - are more or less naked speculation."(1982) "The Monkey Puzzle", Bodley Head: London, p:160

Ian Tattersall's book is revealing because it outlines both the facts and the fiction - a rare event indeed. Unfortunately, Tattersall like all evolutionists, regularly slips into the mistake of describing guesses as fact. Despite this lapse, the book reveals the truth very candidly.

So what should we regard as the real facts of human evolution? Only those things that can be directly observed can be considered to be facts, not the interpretation of those facts.

Remember, human evolution is an historical hypothesis, and history cannot be proven without an observer's or witnesses' input. Human evolution has no observer's or witnesses' record, so it cannot be scientifically proven. Tattersall agrees, and makes this point:-

"It's not actually possible to prove ancestry" Ian Tattersall (1995), "The Fossil Trail: How we know what we think we know about human evolution", Oxford University Press: New York p:169

Modern 'proofs' of human evolution using cladograms are not proofs in the true sense of the word - ie the type that comes from an examination of the facts using the scientific method. Instead, they are statistical probability diagrams that lend weight to a theory. They can never prove a theory in the way that applying a universal law to a scenario can produce proof.

It is true to say that the foundation of scientific development is the formulation of hypotheses and theories. This activity must never be stifled as any restrictions on speculation would stifle scientific progress. However, it is the regard of hypotheses and theories as absolute fact that flies in the face of the scientific method and true scientific research.

Hypotheses are OK - so long as they are spoken of, taught as, propagated as, and written about, as hypotheses - not FACT. Human evolution, therefore, remains unproven - the facts just aren't there.

NOTE: As a scientist, formerly involved in research, I know that claims of fact without indisputable proof would not be tolerated in most branches of experimental science. In medicine, health and nutrition, for example, scientists would be deregistered, de-frocked, disbarred and sued for propagating theory as fact. Paleoanthropology (the study of ancient humans) appears to be one field where such rules of factual integrity are deliberately and universally ignored.

SOURCE: Ian Tattersall (1995), "The Fossil Trail: How we know what we think we know about human evolution", Oxford University Press: New York

Viceroy63 wrote:Once more I provide links and sources to the fact that the theory of evolution is an unfounded and unproven hypothesis. It is not fact. This is not just me saying this but people who actually studied this and have degrees and doctorates from prestigious schools and universities. This one goes out to all you open minded folks who can see the obviousness of the truth. May these articles continue to found and to ground your faith in the truth and not in lies and scientific Hoaxes.

This drawing should be very familiar. It is found in many science and evolution textbooks, and is exhibited at museum displays about human evolution. But...... is it really factual?

What are the facts that scientists really know about human evolution? A useful resource to find an answer to this question is Ian Tattersall's book, "The Fossil Trail: How we know what we think we know about human evolution". The book describes the facts and the fiction surrounding human origins while providing an overview of discoveries since Darwin's time.

These are the general facts that can be gleaned from the book:-

(1) Human-like fossils have been found in rocks, caves, dry lakes, glaciers, and other sites

(2) Some fossils have been found inside caves, while others have been found near building remains

(3) These fossils have been found in different spots around the world

(4) These fossils have been found in a variety of rock types and at varying depths

(5) Most fossils have been found as scattered bits and pieces

(6) Only a tiny number of complete skeletons have been found

(7) There is a great deal of variety in these human-like fossils

(8) Tools that could have been made by humans have been found with many of these fossils

(9) The tools have been constructed of various materials - stone, bone, wood, antler and metal

(10) The age of fossils and materials older than recorded history (about 2,500 years) are not known

(11) Fossils and materials of unknown age have dates estimated using indirect methods

These are the general facts of human evolution. There are many instances of specific facts describing isolated instances, but these do not lend weight to the overall picture.

Everything else that is said to be 'known' about human evolution is based on scientist's interpretation of this archaeological and fossil evidence. It is obvious then, that, most of what is said to be fact is informed speculation.

Much of this speculative interpretation is coloured by the evolutionary biases of the experts. The back cover of Tattersall's book describes the book as revealing "the insidious ways that received wisdom can shape how we interpret fossil findings, and how what we expect to find colours our understanding of what we do find."

Despite knowing this, TV documentaries, journal articles, news media and school textbooks fill out the few facts with scientist's interpretations, and the whole lot is presented as indisputable fact. Small wonder that students think that scientists have proved that humans evolved and that they know everything about how that evolution happened. John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas make this point:-

"Many ordinary people, reading the works of a single popularizer, believe that the riddle of human origins has been solved. In no case is this true, and all the ideas in print today - including our own - are more or less naked speculation."(1982) "The Monkey Puzzle", Bodley Head: London, p:160

Ian Tattersall's book is revealing because it outlines both the facts and the fiction - a rare event indeed. Unfortunately, Tattersall like all evolutionists, regularly slips into the mistake of describing guesses as fact. Despite this lapse, the book reveals the truth very candidly.

So what should we regard as the real facts of human evolution? Only those things that can be directly observed can be considered to be facts, not the interpretation of those facts.

Remember, human evolution is an historical hypothesis, and history cannot be proven without an observer's or witnesses' input. Human evolution has no observer's or witnesses' record, so it cannot be scientifically proven. Tattersall agrees, and makes this point:-

"It's not actually possible to prove ancestry" Ian Tattersall (1995), "The Fossil Trail: How we know what we think we know about human evolution", Oxford University Press: New York p:169

Modern 'proofs' of human evolution using cladograms are not proofs in the true sense of the word - ie the type that comes from an examination of the facts using the scientific method. Instead, they are statistical probability diagrams that lend weight to a theory. They can never prove a theory in the way that applying a universal law to a scenario can produce proof.

It is true to say that the foundation of scientific development is the formulation of hypotheses and theories. This activity must never be stifled as any restrictions on speculation would stifle scientific progress. However, it is the regard of hypotheses and theories as absolute fact that flies in the face of the scientific method and true scientific research.

Hypotheses are OK - so long as they are spoken of, taught as, propagated as, and written about, as hypotheses - not FACT. Human evolution, therefore, remains unproven - the facts just aren't there.

NOTE: As a scientist, formerly involved in research, I know that claims of fact without indisputable proof would not be tolerated in most branches of experimental science. In medicine, health and nutrition, for example, scientists would be deregistered, de-frocked, disbarred and sued for propagating theory as fact. Paleoanthropology (the study of ancient humans) appears to be one field where such rules of factual integrity are deliberately and universally ignored.

SOURCE: Ian Tattersall (1995), "The Fossil Trail: How we know what we think we know about human evolution", Oxford University Press: New York

blablabla! no one has time to read your posts viceroy, nor plays your videos. which monkey from your signature is closest to your humanoid form?

Like I said, "Closed minds." Obviously betiko, has an infatuation for the monkeys!

Then I am ask to produce evidence to back up my statements. Well, There it is if only you would read it? But there is a reason for such hostilities and this Video explains it perfectly.

Why is it that scientist, teachers and doctors lose employment or are harassed when they mention "Intelligent Design?"

Why should people not have the freedom to express the truth without fear of reprisals?

Why do evolutionist have to lie about an unfounded and unproven hypothesis?

[01] Believe it or not Andy, I do have a very open mind to new thoughts and idea's and am willing, unlike most of my commentators on this thread, to at least view both sides of this issue. I have actually seen this video twice before and am now watching it for the third time in order to refute this with a more refreshed memory of it. I would like to point out that the theory of evolution being taught as fact, was not on trial. Only if "ID" Intelligent Design should be taught as science when it clearly is religion and the constitution of the United States of America has a separation of church and state which is why prayers are no longer conducted in school. Which is indicated at 12:15 time index in your Nova Video.

[02] Never is the teaching of a universally accepted theory of evolution put on trial because evolutionist will always fall back on the, "No, your honor; We are not teaching this as fact but as a scientific hypothesis???" And since there is nothing in the constitution about teaching scientific theories and hypothesis, then it really would not make any sense to take evolution to trial. But the fact still remains that if the theory of evolution were a reality or true science and not a theory, then it would not be called a theory in the first place. And would be completely obvious to all if the evidence was indeed "overwhelming" as evolutionist claim. If the evidence was overwhelming then evolutionary scientist would never have to come up with Hoaxes all throughout the, more than 100 years of Hoaxes perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. They simply would not have to because the evidence would stand on it's own.

[03] The theory of evolution is a mandated teaching subject and students get graded on that so that they have to learn that or they don't go anywhere. Textbooks depicting false evidence of evolution such as the Homo series or the horse series are engraved into the young minds of our future as they mature into adulthood thinking and believing that evolution must be true because it was reinforced on them so heavily at school. They certainly do not graduate high school if they are not indoctrinated into that theory or belief.

[04] But the Dover trial never stated that the theory of evolution was true or worthy of teaching. Only that according to the constitution of the United States of America, there must be a separation between Church and state. And Intelligent Design is certainly considered religion and should not be taught in schools. Incidentally, teachers can teach creation as an example contrary to, or an aside to the theory of evolution if they are not afraid of losing their jobs. And that is the real issue that the Video, "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" had demonstrated.

[05] In the Video, "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" Ben Stein, interviewed Teachers, Doctors, Museum Curators/Scientist and even a Reporter among others who all lost their employment and were harassed and their lives changed because of the issue of Intelligent Design. This is not addressed in your Nova Video the Dover Trial. I would think that if you are going to post a video to refute mine that it would at least address some of the issues. The Dover Trial addressed just one of the issues brought up by "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed."

[06] I maintain such an open and scientific mind on this subject that I even watched critics attack the Ben Stein video, "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" and all they could focus on was the negative aspect of the videos. They never criticized the whole thing. Only selected parts and misrepresent what the message was. For example the critics state that the Ben Stein video claims that Darwinism must lead to Nazism. This is not true. The Video only makes the point that it is easy to go down that path if life is taught as only just an accident of evolutionary theory. That should be clear to anyone that where there is no god of morals then it becomes easier to behave immorally.

[07] Another aspect of the video was the freedom that we are losing in every area of our lives including Science and education. In fact this is the principle point of the Ben Stein video. But critics never touched this topic. Why does the Media, Magazines and Movies only show one side of the topic? Why not show the whole truth of the Issue. For example this Nova Video represents the theory of evolution as a logical course of action. Starting at time index 41:25, they begin to first depict new evidence (That could not be presented so why even mention it) in support of the theory of evolution in the fossil records. This is misrepresentation. And they even show what appears like a very large salamander when they began talking about a fish?

[08] Here is what I found on Tiktaalic..."These trackways are a remarkable find but tracks are not particularly unusual in the fossil record. Thousands of trackways of land animals have been found in many different locations all over the world. What has captured world attention is that that these tracks are dated (using evolutionary assumptions) at 397 million years, which makes them fully 18 million years older than Tiktaalik (again, by evolutionary thinking). If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be.It’s suddenly been demoted to an evolutionary dead end along with all the other fossils connected with it. In other words, all those neat evolutionary diagrams that vividly displayed the transition from fish to four-footed animal ancestor (such as figure 1) need to be disposed of. The evolutionary house of cards, so proudly paraded before the world, collapses with a breeze of evidence from Poland."(http://creation.mobi/tiktaalik-finished)

[09] So the Nova video never gave the whole truth about Tiktaalik but only represents the theory of evolution as true and logical while in fact Tiktaalik is not only an evolutionary dead end, it is also a lie on national television. When ever you present something, anything as true when you do not know for sure, It is a lie and that is what Nova did when they brought up the Tiktaalik and then said that it could not be shown in Dover courts because the research was still new. It is misleading and a lie.

[10] Then at time index 46:10 there is mention of Archeopteryx. The supposedly half bird, half dinosaur transitional species. But when we first see this creature in the fossil records it is a fully formed bird with teeth. There are no half formed wings and no intermediary species leading up to it from a dinosaur. This is the problem with using the fossil records. They don't lie like scientist do even in a court of law. Creationist have the morals not to create hoaxes in the name of their faith basically lying to the public, while evolutionary scientist apparently have no such problems with that what so ever. "What evolutionists now know for sure is that their celebrity superstar was not a transitional creature after all."(http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html)

[11] And this misrepresentation goes on into defining even the word, "theory." Why should Nova be so biased in the face of evidence that has been proven to be false or a Hoax? It's like it was previously stated in the above posted article,

"Despite knowing this, TV documentaries, journal articles, news media and school textbooks fill out the few facts with scientist's interpretations, and the whole lot is presented as indisputable fact. Small wonder that students think that scientists have proved that humans evolved and that they know everything about how that evolution happened. John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas make this point:-"Many ordinary people, reading the works of a single popularizer, believe that the riddle of human origins has been solved. In no case is this true, and all the ideas in print today - including our own - are more or less naked speculation.""(1982) "The Monkey Puzzle", Bodley Head: London, p:160

[12] The Ben Stein video, "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" does in fact answer many of the questions for why there is even a debate between creationist and evolutionist while your Nova Video only continues the deception of reinforcing false and disproved evidence into an unsuspecting public. The Ben Stein video touches on a vital truth and principle that our very real freedom is at stake here and not just lies. It starts out with lies but who knows where this will all lead to one day. We already find the issue of abortion easy to deal with because life is just an accident of evolutionary tissue? So what? But the truth is not so easy to Expel.

[13] There is more that I could say about this but I believe that I have made my point. That Nova Video just does not refute the Ben Stein Video or add to the evolutionist argument at all. You can not argue against Intelligent Design using lies and false evidence as we see in the Dover trial. And no where are you refuting or proving with the Nova video that evolutionary scientist are not lying with their Hoaxes. That they manage to fool so many people in the world is simply outstanding and unprecedented but the truth stands all on it's own. This alone should be seen as evil and reason to stand up against the false teaching and unfounded theory of evolution being presented and taught as fact.

AndyDufresne wrote:Somewhere I feel like we slipped down the rabbit hole and bumped our heads.

--Andy

I've got two solutions for you.

(1) Western medicine

(2) A story about evil demons and why you have to pay me $19.99 to perform this dance-dance revolution ritual in order to dispel the demons, thus restoring your charismatic qi energy chasm qhan qhan level.

AndyDufresne wrote:Somewhere I feel like we slipped down the rabbit hole and bumped our heads.

--Andy

Any time that some one says, "Sure there's evidence, Just look at the Horse exhibit!" (or some other refuted bit of evidence); They are then lying or spreading lies because the evidence has been refuted. During the trial the prosecution had been using fossil evidence to basically say that evolution is a viable science when it is not.

Evolutionist did not win that trial because they have a true science but because Intelligent Design is obviously a religious idea. What is not being said is that Darwinism is also a religious idea, although not so obvious, because it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as the origin of species, one way or the other.

Evolutionist begin with unclear and not so well defined terms, continue with Hoaxes of the fossil records that they created and then end in some other true branch of science such as Biological Evolutionary Science to conclude their case. But their own evidence in the fossil records is sadly lacking. How can you use fossils to teach the theory of evolution as fact when the evidence is not there. Where is the missing link? This is why it is still called a theory.

Last edited by Viceroy63 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Viceroy63 wrote: How can you use fossils to teach the theory of evolution as fact when the evidence is not there.

The only evidence for your intelligent design theory, is that you don't feel there is enough evidence for evolution.

And, while you are considering that evidence. It isn't.

There is quite a bit of evidence for human delusional behavior however, and you have unwittingly provided just a little more for that particular science. And I don't mean this as an insult. Its a warning. Its a warning that you should take seriously, because you are dooming those around you, and presumably your family to actually growing up ignorant to the world around you, and honestly, its just a damn shame to see happen.

Historically, its hardly unprecedented, and people have lived fulfilling lives, believing in some crazy stuff, but it's still a shame, because the real world really is beautiful and amazing, and shielding yourself from it, is just a waste.

Viceroy63 wrote: How can you use fossils to teach the theory of evolution as fact when the evidence is not there.

The only evidence for your intelligent design theory, is that you don't feel there is enough evidence for evolution.

And, while you are considering that evidence. It isn't.

There is quite a bit of evidence for human delusional behavior however, and you have unwittingly provided just a little more for that particular science. And I don't mean this as an insult. Its a warning. Its a warning that you should take seriously, because you are dooming those around you, and presumably your family to actually growing up ignorant to the world around you, and honestly, its just a damn shame to see happen.

Historically, its hardly unprecedented, and people have lived fulfilling lives, believing in some crazy stuff, but it's still a shame, because the real world really is beautiful and amazing, and shielding yourself from it, is just a waste.

My thoughts exactly , it may be condescending but I really feel for this guys kids and the many thousands of others who are home schooled to ' protect ' them from scientific 'lies' , very very sad

It's amusing that people fear leaving economic decisions (e.g. welfare) voluntarily to participants in the markets, yet they tend to have no problem with letting anybody vote on the most important positions in the world.

It's amusing that people fear leaving economic decisions (e.g. welfare) voluntarily to participants in the markets, yet they tend to have no problem with letting anybody vote on the most important positions in the world.

Democracy has some serious weaknesses,apart from allowing the stupid to vote,we don't allow minors to vote however well informed,but generally don't stop the elderly even when they've clearly lost their faculties.What can be done about this,I have no idea..

It's amusing that people fear leaving economic decisions (e.g. welfare) voluntarily to participants in the markets, yet they tend to have no problem with letting anybody vote on the most important positions in the world.

Democracy has some serious weaknesses,apart from allowing the stupid to vote,we don't allow minors to vote however well informed,but generally don't stop the elderly even when they've clearly lost their faculties.What can be done about this,I have no idea..

I have no problem with anyone who is a citizen and not a felon voting, no matter what their beliefs. If it turns out that the majority happen to be idiots, so be it.

And BBS, on this last election, they absolutely did everything they could to limit who voted, and in previous elections actually threw out the votes of some they didn't want to vote, and arguably changed world history for all time.

It's amusing that people fear leaving economic decisions (e.g. welfare) voluntarily to participants in the markets, yet they tend to have no problem with letting anybody vote on the most important positions in the world.

Democracy has some serious weaknesses,apart from allowing the stupid to vote,we don't allow minors to vote however well informed,but generally don't stop the elderly even when they've clearly lost their faculties.What can be done about this,I have no idea..

I don't know why you guys are bitching over idiots who vote. Did you not vote in the last election? I have no doubt that you did! So then I have proven my point; Idiots are already voting in elections. So what's the big deal fella's? Huh? (Who's Yo Daddy President?)

Viceroy63 wrote:Evolutionist begin with unclear and not so well defined terms, continue with Hoaxes of the fossil records that they created and then end in some other true branch of science such as Biological Evolutionary Science to conclude their case. But their own evidence in the fossil records is sadly lacking. How can you use fossils to teach the theory of evolution as fact when the evidence is not there. Where is the missing link? This is why it is still called a theory.

I'm not sure why you feel evolutionists begin with unclear or poorly-defined terms. Maybe I can help. What terms do you feel are unclear or poorly defined? In the meantime, I suggest reading the entirety of Stephen Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Regardless of one's idea of his theories, he does a wonderful job of laying out the history and modern thought of evolutionary theory (at least up to the early 2000s).

It's amusing that people fear leaving economic decisions (e.g. welfare) voluntarily to participants in the markets, yet they tend to have no problem with letting anybody vote on the most important positions in the world.

Democracy has some serious weaknesses,apart from allowing the stupid to vote,we don't allow minors to vote however well informed,but generally don't stop the elderly even when they've clearly lost their faculties.What can be done about this,I have no idea..

I don't know why you guys are bitching over idiots who vote. Did you not vote in the last election? I have no doubt that you did! So then I have proven my point; Idiots are already voting in elections. So what's the big deal fella's? Huh? (Who's Yo Daddy President?)

If you are trying to prove your sanity, posts like this will not help.

I still agree sanity, nor literacy should be a requirement for voting, but still...at least pretend to be either before openly questioning someone else's ability.